---

Mrs. Taylor: There is no need for any debate or action of the kind suggested. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear yesterday that hon. Members are entitled to speak their mind.

26 Jun 1997 : Column 988

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): May we have a debate on the Government's proposals for the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, and in particular the future operations of Nirex?

Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in that matter over many years. He can make representations to the Ministers involved, but I cannot promise him a debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): Pursuant to the answer that I received from the Leader of the House regarding the Northern Ireland Grand Committee last Thursday, when she said, in an answer recorded at column 461, that there would be opportunities for questions, may I press again for a meeting of the Committee with a period of questions, bearing in mind the fact that, while I welcome the participation of other hon. Members in Northern Ireland business, there seems to be some syndicating or mental telepathy, as, in the most recent Northern Ireland questions, only one Northern Ireland Member appeared on the list? That makes it impossible for us to deal with constituency matters. Might further consideration therefore be given to a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?

Mrs. Taylor: I have no responsibility for the Order Paper, but I recall what the hon. Gentleman said last week, and I will discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): To identify sleaze in the House, would not the Opposition agree that a debate is needed urgently on early-day motion 164?

[That this House is shocked that the Leader of the Opposition accepted a gift of £20,000 from David Steene, managing director of the City Mortgage Corporation which specialises in marketing oppressive mortgage deals to vulnerable and unsophisticated people who are judged to be high risks by reputable companies; deplores CMC's high interest rates that are doubled if a single payment is missed in order that increasing debts lead to homes being repossessed to the profit of CMC; is appalled that thousands of CMC's victims are left homeless and in debt; notes that the CMC Victims Group has accused the company of malpractice; and agrees with the Group's call that the Leader of the Opposition should give the £20,000 to the victims of the CMC in order to convince the House that he is opposed to sleaze.]

The motion gives details of how the Leader of the Opposition accepted a gift of £20,000 from Mr. David Steene, who operates an extraordinary business called the City Mortgage Corporation that specialises in giving mortgages to vulnerable, high-risk people at high rates of interest that are often doubled in the course of the mortgage, in order to gain possession of the houses for Mr. Steene's own profit. The victims of the organisation have described his business practices as atrocious, and accused him of malpractice. Is it right that the Leader of the Opposition should have been elected on the basis of £20,000--money that is highly dubious, if not from an immoral source?

26 Jun 1997 : Column 989

Mrs. Taylor: I can understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter. He can of course raise it with Sir Gordon Downey, and perhaps it would be better dealt with by him than in a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the qualifications and criteria for holding the position of Secretary of State in the Government of which she is such a prominent member? It need only be a short debate, because the principal participants would be the Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and perhaps the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), who has also had recent occasion to encounter the Secretary of State for Wales, although in a slightly different context.

It might even be useful to the House if the Prime Minister himself were prepared to participate in that short debate, which would help to illuminate the matters so ably identified by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's question has anything to do with the fact that the Opposition have no shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Perhaps he will find some Welsh connections instead of his Scottish ones. We will take no lectures from a party that not only has no shadow Secretary of State for Wales but no Welsh Members.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to arrange for a meeting of the House of Commons Commission next week? This Parliament has been existence for many weeks, and I understand that the Commission has not met. Many hon. Members are aware of several rumbling industrial relations problems relating to the employees of the House. The matter should be urgently addressed by the Commission. That is its business if it meets; if it does not, it is the business of all 659 of us to ensure that proper good industrial relations are maintained.

Mrs. Taylor: The House of Commons Commission has now been established, but the domestic Committees have not yet been set up. I do not know when the next meeting of the Commission will be, but I anticipate that there will be one before the summer recess.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Will the right hon. Lady consider the need for a debate next week on the ability of hon. Members to speak their minds? Does she accept that she quoted the Prime Minister selectively? Yesterday, he said:

"People are perfectly entitled to state their position"--

not their minds--but after only a comma he continued:

"provided, of course, that they do so in accordance with the rules of the parliamentary party."--[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 837.]

Does she not feel that it is necessary to have a debate on whether the Labour party asserts privileges and rules above those of each and every Member of this House?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked me to reconsider the need for a debate; I do not think that there is a need for a debate.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): May I urge my right hon. Friend to make time for an urgent debate on the law

26 Jun 1997 : Column 990

of perjury and its application? Is she aware that in 1995, 193 people were sent to prison for perjury, and that, since 1979, the longest prison sentence for the offence was a mere five years? Does she agree that perjury is very serious, and that there is a case for the Home Secretary to review the appropriate sentence to be meted out to people who knowingly perjure themselves in the courts of this land?

Mrs. Taylor: The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend that perjury is a very serious matter. I will bring his comments to the attention of the Law Officers.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): May I press the right hon. Lady again on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)? It is a little more serious than was suggested by the glib way in which she dismissed it. After the point to which my hon. Friend referred, the Prime Minister said:

"I can give my personal assurance that no such threat was made."--[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 837.]

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) claims that that is not correct, and that the Prime Minister has been misled. Would it not therefore be right that he should come to the House and clarify the situation as a matter of urgency?

Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said, but I remind the hon. Gentleman, who may not know this because he is now on the Back Benches, not on the Front Bench, that the leader of his party wrote to the Prime Minister this morning about this matter, and the Prime Minister confirmed that he had investigated the allegations, was satisfied with the result and that the matter was closed.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that academic articles produced by Hull university politics department, entitled "Blair's Bastards", listed Labour Members who had voted on the most occasions against the Whip and who presumably had spoken out the most? I was second on that list. However, in 10 years, I have not had a dicky bird said to me by Whips or Ministers to seek to control that. Does that not show that there is a great deal of tolerance within the Labour party?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend proves that we do not need a debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): May I add to the calls for an early debate in Government time to consider the question of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is one of the most important Committees in the House, particularly in the present climate, and that it is absolutely imperative that it commands the greatest respect across the Floor of the House and beyond?

Is the right hon. Lady aware that only three Privy Counsellors have been nominated to the Committee, which, until 1940, was chaired by no less a person than the Prime Minister? Of the 11 Committee members, three are new Labour Members who simply cannot be expected to understand the proceedings and complications of the House after such a short time. Indeed, it would be extremely unfair to expect them to do so.

26 Jun 1997 : Column 991

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), to whom I gave notice that I would raise the matter, is in a particularly difficult position: not only is she brand new, but she is to sit on a Committee that will preside over the fate of her predecessor, Mr. Michael Brown. That creates a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), to whom I also spoke before raising the matter this afternoon, was involved with Mr. David Hencke in receiving advance notification, to the benefit of the then Opposition, of the story that was to be run by The Guardian about a member of the Conservative party.

I invite the Leader of the House to consider this matter seriously. You, Madam Speaker, made it clear in the previous Parliament how seriously you regard the way in which the House is portrayed to people outside. The House's reputation is at stake; the Select Committee is charged with the task of representing the House to the outside world. I hope that the Leader of the House understands the serious points that I have raised, and will arrange for a debate.

---